H. K. RATHOD, J. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati for appellant insurance company and learned Advocate Mr. K.L. Dave for respondents-original claimants in this group of appeals.

2. By filing these appeals, appellant insurance company has challenged common award made by MACT at Junagadh in MACP No. 189 of 1995 and other consolidated matters dated 25.4.2000 Exh. 167. Accident occurred on 22.2.95. The vehicle involved is Matador bearing No. GJ.14.T.3173 which was driven by opponent no.1 and was insured with opponent NO.2. Policy was produced at Exh. 162 and 166. RC Book was produced at Exh. 165 and all matters were consolidated together and decided accordingly by claims tribunal. Claims Tribunal considered following points for deciding said group of claim petitions :

“(1) Whether it is proved that the that the incident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of motor vehicle I.e. career Tempo No. GJ.14.3173 by opponent No.1?

(2) Whether the opponent no.2 is also liable for the aforesaid incident?

(3) Whether the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the aforesaid vehicular accident?

(4) To what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled?

(5) What award?”

3. Claims Tribunal answered point no.1 to 3 in affirmative and made award of compensation accordingly in favour of claimants which is under challenge in this group of appeals.

4. Before claims tribunal, ten witnesses were examined which has corroborated facts narrated in FIR and Panchanama and said vehicle is insured with opponent no.2 which is a goods vehicle, for which, it was argued by insurance company that as there is a goods vehicle, insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation to claimants. Claims Tribunal held that insurance company is liable to pay compensation to claimants as per reported decision in AIR 2000 SC 235, case of Satpal Singh.

5. Learned Advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati appearing for appellant insurance company has not challenged amount of compensation as worked out by claims tribunal in aforesaid group of claim petitions. Only legal contention is raised that when accident occurred on 22nd February, 1995, persons those who were travelling in goods vehicle being marriage party and, therefore, their risk is not covered under policy issued by appellant insurance company and, therefore, all are gratuitous passengers therefore, claims tribunal ought not to have held that insurance company is liable to pay compensation to claimants. He submitted that claims tribunal has committed gross error in deciding claim petitions holding liability of insurance company with owner of vehicle. He relied upon claim petition and written statement filed by insurance company. From claim petition, he pointed out that claimant has made clear statement in affidavit that on 22nd February, 1995, all persons were going to take daughter of Dahyabhai after marriage from Barvala to Malvan which has been considered as Dhag after marriage. Matador No. GJ.14.T.3173 is belonging to respondent no.1 who is owner and driver of said matador. These all persons were travelling with goods belonging to daughter of Dahyabhai which has been called as goods relating to kariavar i.e. dowry after paying fare of Rs.50.00 to owner and driver of said Matador. During that time, at about 6.00 a.m., on Kukavav-Amreli Road, near Kotda village, while passing through turn, driver of Matador namely opponent No.1 drove vehicle carelessly and in full speed as a result of which, matador had turned turtle wherein serious injuries were received by claimants in hands and legs and thereafter, relying on aforesaid facts as admitted by claimants in their affidavit, learned advocate Mr. Nanavati submitted that it was an admission of the claimants that they were travelling in a goods vehicle as a gratuitous passengers or a members of a marriage party and, therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay amount of compensation to claimants. He relied upon para 5 of written state